Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
zaph

Is there a QLD council that isn't under investigation?

47 posts in this topic

59 minutes ago, tor said:

Are there any countries which do this? On the surface it seems a good idea (I am sure someone will have found a way to game it though).

Australia does, to a degree. Anyone who get's more than 4% of the vote get's 262.784 cents per vote in govt funding. Roughly $23 million for each of the majors. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zaph said:

Australia does, to a degree. Anyone who get's more than 4% of the vote get's 262.784 cents per vote in govt funding. Roughly $23 million for each of the majors. 

 

The problem is that monies are only paid after the electoral results.That means that to get started, monies could have been supplied by developers.

Political parties could be given a government loan for advertising and admin of elections that may need to be partially/fully repaid based on electoral results. This may involve providing an asset backed security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

The problem is that monies are only paid after the electoral results.That means that to get started, monies could have been supplied by developers.

Political parties could be given a government loan for advertising and admin of elections that may need to be partially/fully repaid based on electoral results. This may involve providing an asset backed security.

Who and how are candidates funding decided? And how much? Do I get funded because I'm a member of the local Apex but not the drunken bum next door? Let's say the government advances me $x, but I fail to get enough votes to deserve that - I have to pay it back. My job is a developer - how can I pay it back? Your proposal is really no different than the current system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zaph said:

Who and how are candidates funding decided? And how much? Do I get funded because I'm a member of the local Apex but not the drunken bum next door? Let's say the government advances me $x, but I fail to get enough votes to deserve that - I have to pay it back. My job is a developer - how can I pay it back? Your proposal is really no different than the current system. 

As I understand, the current system refunds political parties after the election results are in, based on performance.

I'm saying that political parties (which require a minimum membership number before they can register) can be given a government loan that requires an equivalent security posted against it,for government funding prior to the election. After the results, the loan is fully or partially paid based on the election results. The balance must be repaid to the government. The main parties would probably fund their election campaigns from public monies. New parties can try their luck, but if they fail to get enough votes, they need to repay the loan. This is not meant to fund a one person political party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

As I understand, the current system refunds political parties after the election results are in, based on performance.

 

Sort of. It is not a 'refund', or reimbursement. The party or individual get's  262.784  cents for each vote above the 4% threshold. They may have spent nothing on trying to be elected and get tens of thousands of dollars. The party or individual can spend it however they want.

Quote

I'm saying that political parties (which require a minimum membership number before they can register) can be given a government loan that requires an equivalent security posted against it,for government funding prior to the election. After the results, the loan is fully or partially paid based on the election results. The balance must be repaid to the government. The main parties would probably fund their election campaigns from public monies. New parties can try their luck, but if they fail to get enough votes, they need to repay the loan. This is not meant to fund a one person political party.

This works for the major parties but absolutely kills small parties or independents. A smattering of small parties and independents is essential to a healthy democracy. 

So let's say I want to run as an independent. Currently, I give uncle Tor a call and as a benefactor, he agrees to chuck in a significant amount of money for my campaign. He may be a property developer, banker or any other such profession that is deemed 'should not donate'. So I get the govt loan for my campaign and have to pay it back. How am I going to pay it back without Tor, my property developer benefactor? Should only the wealthy be allowed to run?

What you are proposing effectively outlaws independents and small parties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, zaph said:

Sort of. It is not a 'refund', or reimbursement. The party or individual get's  262.784  cents for each vote above the 4% threshold. They may have spent nothing on trying to be elected and get tens of thousands of dollars. The party or individual can spend it however they want.

This works for the major parties but absolutely kills small parties or independents. A smattering of small parties and independents is essential to a healthy democracy. 

So let's say I want to run as an independent. Currently, I give uncle Tor a call and as a benefactor, he agrees to chuck in a significant amount of money for my campaign. He may be a property developer, banker or any other such profession that is deemed 'should not donate'. So I get the govt loan for my campaign and have to pay it back. How am I going to pay it back without Tor, my property developer benefactor? Should only the wealthy be allowed to run?

What you are proposing effectively outlaws independents and small parties. 

As per current situation, the small fish will have to have financial backing to get into politics, but this time not from 'should not donate' persons/entities.

The change is most applicable to the larger political parties, where decisions/laws are made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cobran20 said:

As per current situation, the small fish will have to have financial backing to get into politics, but this time not from 'should not donate' persons/entities.

The change is most applicable to the larger political parties, where decisions/laws are made.

That smells like change for the sake of change. Zaph seems to have pointed out it would make no functional difference. It seems to me that the focus on bankers and developers is simply because they are the ones doing it at the moment. Open the door to other professions being able to sway policy in exactly the same way and I am sure they will try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tor said:

Open the door to other professions being able to sway policy in exactly the same way and I am sure they will try it.

 

There's corruption everywhere. Councils (especially smaller ones) are particularly open to it. Bring me 10k and I'll approve your non-compliant development. Try to give a state or fed 10k and they will laugh. Once you get to a state or fed level the corruption is much more subtle. 

I kind of liked PNG corruption. It was obvious. The price was one dollar and a one dollar donation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2017 at 7:28 AM, tor said:

That smells like change for the sake of change. Zaph seems to have pointed out it would make no functional difference. It seems to me that the focus on bankers and developers is simply because they are the ones doing it at the moment. Open the door to other professions being able to sway policy in exactly the same way and I am sure they will try it.

The law can be generic enough to apply to any person/body that has a clear financial interest in the planning decisions of government. 

It can equally apply, for example, to mining companies who may have an interest in government allowing underground mining over farming land.

At the end of the day, a government needs to make decisions in the interest of the electorate rather than a specific vested interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

The law can be generic enough to apply to any person/body that has a clear financial interest in the planning decisions of government. 

 

By planning do you mean property development specifically?

Most politicians have significant financial interest in property. For instance, Cambell Newman and his family had (and have expanded) big property and development interests. Should he not be allowed to be lord mayor of Brisbane or a state member or the premier?

Quote

At the end of the day, a government needs to make decisions in the interest of the electorate rather than a specific vested interest.

Of course. I don't think blanket bans on developers serves that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

A ban on property developers donating to political candidates and parties may not be in place before the Queensland state election campaign.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/property-developer-donation-ban-will-not-be-rushed-through-this-week-20171009-p4ywd9.html

 

One last bite of the cherry.

What a phucking joke. "We'll ban developer donations just as soon as my brown paper bag get;s here"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zaph said:

By planning do you mean property development specifically?

Most politicians have significant financial interest in property. For instance, Cambell Newman and his family had (and have expanded) big property and development interests. Should he not be allowed to be lord mayor of Brisbane or a state member or the premier?

Of course. I don't think blanket bans on developers serves that. 

 

No, it can apply to any planning decision. At the end of the day, a person/entity should not be donating to whoever makes a decision that needs to focus on the public interest and that person/entity has a direct financial interest in the outcome of such decision. Industry (or individuals) has every right, as an example, to request for better infrastructure to improve business, create jobs, etc. But when somebody owns land that can skyrocket if it gets rezoned for Meriton valleys or for a highway to go through it, then there is a clear conflict of interest if donations are given to the party in power that makes those planning decisions. The awarding of contracts for the development stage is subject to government policy for an open tender to be undertaken. Those making decisions are required to disclose any conflict of interest and as I understand, need to exclude themselves if they disclose a conflict.

So politicians should also be on the ban list for any decision making where they have a conflict of interest that impacts their assets. The rule/law needs to be applied impartially across the board.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 8:09 PM, cobran20 said:

No, it can apply to any planning decision. At the end of the day, a person/entity should not be donating to whoever makes a decision that needs to focus on the public interest and that person/entity has a direct financial interest in the outcome of such decision. Industry (or individuals) has every right, as an example, to request for better infrastructure to improve business, create jobs, etc. But when somebody owns land that can skyrocket if it gets rezoned for Meriton valleys or for a highway to go through it, then there is a clear conflict of interest if donations are given to the party in power that makes those planning decisions. The awarding of contracts for the development stage is subject to government policy for an open tender to be undertaken. Those making decisions are required to disclose any conflict of interest and as I understand, need to exclude themselves if they disclose a conflict.

So politicians should also be on the ban list for any decision making where they have a conflict of interest that impacts their assets. The rule/law needs to be applied impartially across the board.

 

My point was that as soon as you say vested interests can't donate (which seems fairly sensible if not realistic[1]) then with your vision you just remove the current crop of donaters and the next in the ladder move in. Currently I don't donate to any political party because I see no return on the investment. Unless your plan removes everyone with a vested interest then you have no one that wants to donate and so you may as well just ban all donations.

[1] the reason I think it is not realistic is the same as the reason spying is good amongst allies (and enemies). Information flow leads to better outcomes. If meraton want to build a sh*t ton of cheap apartments then people get housing and meriton get rich. So long as there is some sensible limitations acted on by the people that can limit the rapaciousness then everyone wins. With no information flowing then weird sh*t happens and no one has a house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tor said:

Currently I don't donate to any political party because I see no return on the investment.

 

You're a very harsh man Tor. Don't you see a return by the globe cooling? Or the richer getting richer? Or the BLF getting 100% pay rises? Donations to political parties may get you this. With the exception of the greens, you're likely to get a nice dinner with someone important. 

Quote

Unless your plan removes everyone with a vested interest then you have no one that wants to donate and so you may as well just ban all donations.

Cobrans plan is to totally ban all donations. (but then have some weird post-election money flogging thing0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zaph said:

You're a very harsh man Tor. Don't you see a return by the globe cooling? Or the richer getting richer? Or the BLF getting 100% pay rises? Donations to political parties may get you this. With the exception of the greens, you're likely to get a nice dinner with someone important. 

Cobrans plan is to totally ban all donations. (but then have some weird post-election money flogging thing0

I would have no problem in banning  financial donations (either direct or indirect by a large group providing free labour and absorbing expenses). It removes any conflict of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cobran20 said:

I would have no problem in banning  financial donations (either direct or indirect by a large group providing free labour and absorbing expenses). It removes any conflict of interest. 

Look out the window. There goes a pig flying past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Six more charges have been laid against former Ipswich mayor Paul Pisasale as part of an investigation by Queensland's Crime and Corruption Commission.

Mr Pisasale, 66, has today been accused of corruption, misconduct in public office, perjury, possessing a restricted drug and two counts of fraud.

The CCC said the official corruption charge related to corrupt payments allegedly made by a property developer.

The CCC will allege the perjury offence was committed at an investigative hearing conducted as part of a CCC investigation.

It said as the investigation was ongoing and the matter was now before the court, the CCC could not comment further.

Mr Pisasale has been issued with notice to appear in court on November 7.

The former mayor is now facing a total of 11 charges, which also include one count of extortion and two counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-10/former-ipswich-mayor-paul-pisasale-faces-six-more-charges-by-ccc/9035428

 

Will Paul wear his PJs to the hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zaph said:

Look out the window. There goes a pig flying past. 

That unfortunately sums it up perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Queensland Labor will inflict significant political pain on the LNP Opposition with its ban on party donations from property developers, with donations disclosure data indicating roughly nine out of every ten dollars given by the sector goes to the LNP.

An analysis of real-time donations disclosures by the Electoral Commission of Queensland by Fairfax Media reveals since January 2016 a total of $1.3 million has been given to the two political parties by companies with the words "property", "properties", "development" or "developments" in their names.

The LNP has received significant income from its own property activities through an in-house company, Altum, which owns industrial property in Brisbane and Gladstone and land on the Sunshine Coast.

It is unclear how the LNP's in-house property activities will be treated under the legislation.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/labor-s-developer-donation-ban-will-hurt-the-lnp-data-indicates-20171012-p4ywfu.html

 

They'll just have to go back to donating the old fashion way. I went to a dozen supermarkets yesterday and all had sold out of brown paper bags. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2017 at 9:30 AM, zaph said:

What a scumbag.

So he considered himself a worthwhile charity - nothing unusual for politicians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0